Correspondence ,l aae a- X40
Dan Nelson
From: Albert Shields
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 4:12 PM
To: Dan Nelson; Debbie Adamski
Cc: Dianna Howse
Subject: Schwindt Medical /Dental SDR2011- 00003, BUP2012- 00060, etc.
Planning & Engineering are OK with issuance of the building permits on this project, BUP2012- 00060, SIT2012- 00004,
PLM2012- 00112, etc. The Tree Mitigation Fee and Cash Assurance Conditions of the SDR have now been Met although a
glitch with Accela is preventing us from showing them as "Met." I've put an OK note in the SDR.
PFI2012 -00013 has been issued (although it was issued against the old address, 11445 and is not linked to •
"Schwindt." Can we fix that ?)
•
You can release the Holds you put on the BUP, PLM, and SIT and issue those permits.
•
DISCLAIMER: E -mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail
may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E -mails are retained
by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule."
•
•
•
•
•
1
April 25, 2012
RE: SWHWINDT DENTAL OFFICE
Project Information
Building Permit: BUP2012 -00060 Construction Type: 5 -B
Address: 11445 SW Summerfield Dr. Occupancy Type: B
Area: 3815 Sq. Ft. Stories: 1
Name: Swhwindt Dental Office Sprinkled: No
The plan review was performed under the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code
(OSSC) 2010 edition; 2010 Oregon Fire Code. Please provide the following conditions
prior to issuance of the permit.
1) Provide mechanical, lighting and insulation energy forms found at
Oregon.gov /energy.
2) Please provide listing for 1 hour exterior west wall.
3) The exits shall be one half the diagonal distance of the building.
4) Please provide 18" clearance on pull side of door at surgery, op1, op2 and
op3.
5) Provide details for Nitrous Room. (venting, wall listing, sprinkler head, door)
When responding, provide an itemized letter stating in what way each numbered
issue has been addressed in the revision.
When submitting revised drawings or additional information, please attach a copy of the
City of Tigard, Letter of Transmittal. The letter. of transmittal assists the City of Tigard
in tracking and processing the documents.
Respectfully,
Dan Nelson
Senior Plans Examiner
(503)718 -2436
dann @tigard - or.gov
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY – SITE ADDRESS: //
/ 5 ,t) � jlk/fiet* iL .7J - De,
This form is recognized by most building departments in the Tri -County area for transmitting information.
Please complete this form when submitting information for plan review responses and revisions.
This form and the information it provides helps the review process and response to your project.
City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
114 ■ Transmittal Letter
1 I I , 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.718.2439 • www.tigard- or.gov
TO: •i,_ >Gl4A___ DATE RECEIVED:
DEPT: BUILDING DIVISION ?Ad/2m
•
FROM: _„i,,,_ D -� 1 k ' .
1 ,
COMPANY: 0,„___ t ►� W
PHONE: • 5 _ : _W 1 A By ��'
RE: .. • a 7 ( () — bC"
rte •'• • ress `i (Perrm "t Number
Ii .1.l)
1' roject name or subdivision name and lot numbe 1
ATTACHE I ARE TH OLLOWING ITEMS:
Copies: I o escription: I opie.. Description:
• dditional set(s) plans. Revisions:
ross section(s) an etails. Wall bracing and/or lateral analysis.
Floor /roof framing. Basement and retaining walls.
beam calculations. f Engineer's calculations.
Other (explain):
REMARKS: �:.m.& 01EL.. /..: amt. GUi. 1 i .o d . -
•
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Routed to Permit t t : Date: Initials:
Fees Due: El No Fee Description: Amount Due:
\ $
Special
Instructions:
Reprint Permit (per PE): ❑ Yes I I AKI No. jj D e
Applicant Notified: Date: rj�g 444..i... / x_. Initi ls: Q ,�
1:\ Bu ild ing\ Forms \TransmittalLetter - Revisions.doc 05/25/2012
Dan Nelson
From: Kevin Saxton <ksaxton @kasapdx.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 7:35 PM
To: Dan Nelson
Cc: 'Scott Emmett'; 'Randy Dudley'; 'Kurt McLaughlin'
Subject: RE: Schwindt Dentist Office; 1 -hr Wall
Hi Dan,
As I mentioned earlier, the UL listing (Design No. V454) that we have for our 1 -hr wall on the west side of the building
calls for steel studs. This design consists of a 4 -inch thick veneer, 4 inch thick polystyrene, gypsum sheathing, steels
studs, and gypsum wall board.
The building, however, has been designed for wood studs. I have dug through both the UL listings and the Gypsum
Associations Fire Resistance Design Manual to find a different rated assembly number as you requested. Unfortunately I
have not been able to find a 1 -hr listing that matches the above description but with wood studs instead of steel studs. I
have also tried to find an ICC report for the brick that we are using that included fire rating for masonry veneer
assemblies. As far as I can tell no ICC report exists for CMU.
Therefore, per Procedure 3 of OSSC 703.3, I would like to request your approval of a calculated design of the wall in
accordance with OSSC 721 as follows:
• Per 721.6.2.1 the fire - resistance rating of a wood frame assembly is equal to the sum of the time assigned to the
membrane on the fire - exposed side, the time assigned to the framing members and the time assigned for additional
contribution by other protective measures such as insulation.
• Per Table 721.6.2(2) wood studs at 16" O.C. have a time assigned for contribution of 20 minutes.
• Per Table 721.6.2(1) 5/8" type X gypsum wallboard has a time assigned for contribution of 40 minutes.
• Per table 720.1(2) item 4 -1.1 concrete masonry units (expanded slag or pumice) that are 4 inches thick have a 3 -hour
fire - resistance rating. Per the attached Tek Note from Northwest Concrete Masonry Association, 4" thick block that
has partially filled cells has a fire resistance rating of 1 -hour.
• Therefore the a wall assembly consisting of 4 -inch thick veneer, 4 inch thick polystyrene, 5/8" type X gypsum
sheathing, 2x6 wood studs at 16" on center, and 5/8" type X gypsum wallboard provides a fire - resistance rating of 1
hour. �1(7 (2-k5
Please let me if you approve of this approach. City of Tigard
Thank you.
Apo rove. Plans
By 4C"•i Date 6 1'1 1 1 ( ?---
te
Sincerely, • (��� � �QD�UVillb ���
Kevin Saxton LEED ®AP
1KASA architects, Inc.
4119 NE Cesar E Chavez Blvd. REVISION.
Portland, Oregon 97211
503.284.6917 OFFICE COPY
From: Dan Nelson jmailto:DanN@tigard- or.govl
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Kevin Saxton
Subject: RE: Schwindt Dentist Office; 1 -hr Wall
Kevin,
Just provide me with the new rated assembly number.
. ..
`
ji lt /
0
TEK NOTE
February 2005
Concrete Masonry Fire Resistance
Concrete masonry is a noncombustible construction material Concretemasonry units (CMU) are commonly manufactured with
possessing excellent fire - resistive properties. The resistance of a combination or blend of aggregate types. The International
concrete masonryto fire is well established byextensive testing to Building Code covers this condition by reference to standard TMS
be a function of the type of aggregate used in the manufacture of 216 ( ref. 5). The minimum equivalent thic required for
the masonry units and their equivalent thickness. The rated fire- a desired fire rating can be determined by interpolating between
resistive periods for block walls can be determined by knowing requirements for different aggregate types in proportion to the
this information and complying with Table 720.1(2), item number percentage by volume of each aggregate used In manufacture.
3 of the International Building Code (IBC)(ref. 1).
For example, fora standard block manufacturedintheNorthwest,
The equivalent thickness of concrete masonry assemblies, T which is approximately a 60/40 percentage blend of gravel and
shall be computed as the sum of the equivalent thickness (average pumice aggregates, the required equivalent thickness values to
solid thickness as shown in Figure 1)of the concrete masonryunit, achieve various fire ratings are shown in Table 2.
T plus the equivalent thickness of finishes, T per Equation 1.
T EA = T E + TEF (Equation 1)
;, r,s
.. Y�;:,'� ^:. �7:• . �'^ • T `j Sf i '� f '�ll� • .' -s�?,
Table-1: ;Equivalent thickness (I f concrete
T = V /LH - block i i d ths ' ; ' '.�: t
`;S_ � ? r _ ,,� . - . >;.•:��:��: f
?;� .:saws ^; � .. .. n =%%:•� :';=w t `�•'",,f.
where: ' .. _ s • • ; ' : _,, A•. :: v= -w vii• ,_ri t'., • :. 1,-.,' ,>•.
• V a net volume of masonry unit, in.' :- f...``. No Block Y , 4 t Block Cell= Treatment`; , .6--f,;-74
= :; Wid th (in.) ..:••. -: -_' 1•;••• :5; :: 4Y •' - .: • >,<
(per ASTM C- 140)(ref. 2) :� -sz <rv: _ �: :, .. -
L = specified len h of T 1). • 9 f'" x f
gt o masonry unit, in. '` ;. • ,r L ®.I- F ? ®.?��; • H = specified height of masonry unit, in ' • '' " ` ' ' Partial F ill w S l ' l }
I.r. [ 4 -.. t t jT.
Equivalent thicknessvaluesforstandard concreteblodcare shown •_ _ F . ? ; Cells 5 / 'C - {� '=+ •
inTabte1. Individualblock manufacturers mayhave highervalues ' ; : s s s. 4 . • ' 2 =5 ' ' ' x, '•=3 "
. • -
based on a greater percentage of solids. A • <, . 6 . 3.1 - r .-5. - $ '
:2 x: 8 . "4.0 f4:; - '7.6 _:0"-.. �.
. • rW • -10 } •,,r, e", e,. 0 0 ,: tom,-. 4• .- r • �
.,..4;6 ,.,,.. , y; , .r 1 _ : k :mi = =- . - .'rz: ':'' . -- ti• ."�'`_.k4,-.: -- _ nes "T:? 5-Y-:• �T�.• ` ` 'r : - 2 ' 1 ' "' ; - _, ,� - x,11 1 • L. 4. �:' Co creter ry,;unit�equival thick � y � ' ` "" '': - f e - -_. 1 i ,
Figure : 1
'e...1444! -,'',;,4,7,174.a-ii, . ° ' r$., ✓ P t�:-y x T •., s ..i -`�1' "' . �` t ` , ` r ; " ' r;; ;4; i. �,F -=:::;:%.: s,-.,' : , '3^ r.
� at*p ',rte" .r s�' �: .:: •' % ry4n „., ' , '; ;5•'.S
'f If this h • un 3 • sol
it s , i tthe equival nt thickness (T 'Cellsc b efill y e oe lo fillinsutatio oraggreg te
` , . .,r: � l x r . I nc n
�E ) 4 ,� a y •,.x a x , : r r .. - }
•s«`xe� %k:. e� -1 � �a - r , - ; ;�:?- _ i w � r�'. °�:�s,�-c�{t'1� s.^'
; is 4 04 .knche r -f •. < , '> - °% ` •
° -. .,A "�' meet C -33 ( ref. 3) or C -331 ,(ref. ''4) requireme <
--.. ��i'. 5'' ,s1Y.' °a. -.;2' ut ux.cir a., i•r. •6 w •4 � `�i. "A`'. k., .� .' k, +,
?.,:.; , a Fr , , � , .11 Table 2.Minimum equivalent thickness required (in:) for,.
fY t y
' � . : fr. -• standa northwest block t,
x ,/� I� Fire Rating , ,
. 8" Hollow Unit
(53% solidi I • 4.04 1 Hr. 2 Hr. 3 Hr. :4 Hr. �
2.52 3.80 4.78 5.60
TE 12 0.53 (7.625) = 4.04 In.
. . ..
By including both hose- stream test procedures, ASTM E -119 inherent non - combustibility coupled with excellent strength and
includes two distinct levels of durability performance. Clearly, durabilitycombine to providefireratedwallswhose performance
application of the hose stream to a specimen that has undergone is exceptional. Masonry walls offer the following fire safety
the full fire - exposure test is more rigorous and indicates a high b
level of durability. In a real buildingfire, awallassemblydoesn't
get a second chance to perform. In typical code applications, .protect building egress
however, no distinction is made between the two tests and, as
a result, assemblies that pass the duplicate specimen test are • Prevent fire - spread within a building and to adjacent
assumed to have the same "durability rating" as those passing buildings
the more rigorous optional test method. This Is an erroneous • Maintain the structural integrity of bearing walls
assumption (see Fig. 3).
• Provide firefighter protection
Control Joints
Movement control joints in fire rated wall assemblies should also Building owners and designers should consider the advantages
be rated. Figure 2 shows the types of control joints available in offered by durable, noncombustible concrete masonry wall
accordance with standardTMS 216 to maintain the fire-resistance systems over other systems having equivalent fire- resistance
rating of the wall in which they are constructed. ratings. Theaddedprotectionprovidedtobothlifeandproperty
should not be overlooked.
Improving Fire Safety
Hourly fire ratings alone do not adequately address structural To provide the best fire protection for occupants and the greatest
performance and durability under real world fire conditions. opportunity to escape, the masonry industry recommends that
This means that some "rated" walls may not be able to provide building codes require a balanced design approach comprised of
the level of fire safety expected. However, concrete masonry's threekeyelements: fire detection, suppression, and containment
bycompartmentation. Fire detection includes the installation of
- f _ :Y ,— ?= .- ,„ :-:, = - �- smoke detectors and fire alarms; active fire suppression includes
Figure 3 I!, , e d Q cat - ec rp p �slo , `' the use of sprinkler systems; and fire containment includes
ASTM El 9 L t ese 2 our- walls.,, s interior firewalls, and exteriorwalls built of noncombustible fire-
44 * s4 . - " ag +a % t rki
resistant materials such as concrete masonry. Concrete masonry
Cpncrele
V asok arr: e-- r ._ . `tat ",
1 - w ,. '� . ' i i constructioncan containthespreadoffirewhilenotemitting toxic
? wt
..,., r . gases or smoke, allowing precious additional time for building
` &" 7,' `' l • occupants to exit. Unfortunately, building and fire codes have
` •` - , strayed significantly from this balanced design approach to
' ;ice , uhf ' , fire safety. Codes often except (trade -off) the requirements to
` " . „. y
use noncombustible construction when certain fire sprinkler
' requirements are met.
Today's building code officials should be encouraged to develop
_, code provisions that provide an improved level of redundancy
, s ` ;, for life safety and property protection and to eliminate sprinkler
trade - offs. Owners and designers should be aware of the benefits
C s ;- of balanced design. Consider the reliability of protection from
x i . only individual fire -safety components versus the redundancy
n 5 ''6. 4i'' 3 A'''+'aa:..A: :r ';f . :A:atY- J'''''I/ i ✓ �kl
Gypsum Wall a a'k u. provided by the complementary features of the balanced-design
t* system. For example, in the event the sprinkler systems fails to
*" w ; : ; 1 properly operate during a fire, the built -in protection offered by
... ;
concrete masonry fire - separation walls will help contain the fire
until it can be controlled. Along with this built -in fire protection,
concrete masonry provides property protection, and ensures
f
r building stability to allow occupants to safely exit. Without this
j level of protection, safety can be jeopardized.
IS
fi t ..
w .. '